Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 18 Aug 2011 20:48:57 +0200 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: + prctl-add-pr_setget_child_reaper-to-allow-simple-process-supervision .patch added to -mm tree |
| |
Hello Kay,
I need to go away, I'll read this patch (and the whole email) tomorrow.
Just a quick note right now,
On 08/18, Kay Sievers wrote: > > static struct task_struct *find_new_reaper(struct task_struct *father) > __releases(&tasklist_lock) > @@ -724,6 +725,19 @@ static struct task_struct *find_new_reap > * forget_original_parent() must move them somewhere. > */ > pid_ns->child_reaper = init_pid_ns.child_reaper; > + } else { > + /* find the first ancestor which is marked as child_reaper */ > + for (thread = father->real_parent; > + thread != thread->real_parent; > + thread = thread->real_parent) { > + if (thread == pid_ns->child_reaper) > + break; > + if (!thread->signal->child_reaper) > + continue; > + if (thread->flags & PF_EXITING) > + continue; > + return thread;
No, this doesn't look right.
This code should do something like
for (reaper = father->real_parent; !same_thread_group(reaper, pid_ns->child_reaper); reaper = reaper->real_parent) { if (!signal->child_reaper) continue;
if (there is a !PF_EXITING thread) return thread; }
And I forgot to mention, could you please-please rename child_reaper? Say, is_child_reaper or is_sub_reaper. Or whatever. I do not really care about the naming. But I use grep very often, and personally I dislike the task->child_reaper/signal->child_reaper confusion.
Oleg.
| |